linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 012/120] tcp: annotate tp->write

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:53:17 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 012/120] tcp: annotate tp->write_seq lockless reads

Hi!

> > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > 
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> 
> Dup.

Aha, sorry, crossed mails. Still I wonder if hiding assignment into
macro is good:

> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ struct sock *tcp_create_openreq_child(co
> >  	newtp->app_limited = ~0U;
> >  
> >  	tcp_init_xmit_timers(newsk);
> > -	newtp->write_seq = newtp->pushed_seq = treq->snt_isn + 1;
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(newtp->write_seq, newtp->pushed_seq = treq->snt_isn + 1);
> 
> Would it be better to do assignment to pushed_seq outside of
> WRITE_ONCE macro? This is ... "interesting".

Best regards,
								Pavel



-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)